Monthly Archives: February 2019

People have asked what keeps me interested in automotive forensics after 25 years. I tell them it is the thrill of the chase. Insurance investigators, Fire investigators, Cops, Engineers understand this all too well.

Every situation whether it is a vehicle crash, a theft, a vehicle fire, a potential defect have one thing in common. That is the huge question of what happened? What happened to cause the current question.

The thrill of the chase is when one finds the undisputed answer as to what exactly happened preceeding the event. Let’s take the Dodge Ram that was known for dash fires at the instrument panel. The first one I ran across was a full burn out, but I found exactly where the wires arced which would have been consistent with the instrument panel. To the layman, this vehicle was totally destroyed by fire and yet the answer was found as to the origin and cause of the fire.

What was really cool was that a couple months later, I was assigned to do an O&C on another Dodge Ram of the same make and model. The difference was that the windows were closed and the fire was starved of oxygen and self-suppressed. Everything was intact except for one gauge package on the instrument panel. The origin was exactly in the same place as the total burned, which sealed the deal! There was no question as to where the fire initiated and the reason was the same arced wires. This situation was so prevalent Chrysler had a stop build and transport orders. These vehicles were burning up on the trains! Chrysler managed to get the issue taken care of, but this is the thrill of the chase when you can answer with full certainty that the reason for the fire was because of a theory and that theory was found t be accurate!

GM Fuel Line fires under the hood. This was a common scenario in which, the main pressurized fuel line would rupture and spill fuel on ignition sources such as a hot exhaust manifold, puddle and ignite the plastics in the area. The plastic fuel lines would decompose and turn brittle. Any movement directly or indirectly would cause the line to fracture. If there was a tune up performed and the tech had his hand on the plastic line it could rupture. One Aurora had an engine mount changed and just by moving the engine around caused this calamity.

Just on the 1997 Olds Aurora there were over 100 consumer complaints of under hood fires and never a recall issued. Complaints of a fire that would go out when the ignition was turned off. The reason was that the fuel pump was no longer powered.

Finding this event to be true was another thrill of the chase moments.

Ford had claimed their first generation PATS transponder system made the statement that such equipped vehicle was virtually unstealable. Dealer techs, locksmiths all stated the system could not be beat. I studied the wiring schematics and had a theory. Ford used a very common Bosche relay controlling the system. I came up with theories as to how to bypass the relay by taking terminals 87 and 30 putting a wire across them. The end result by me thinking like a thief was that I had successfully bypassed the system. My bypass was applied by others and worked on every Ford SUV and truck! This was definitely a thrill of the chase moment!

I had a Chev Truck with a fatality crash. The air bags did not deploy and there was no obvious reason they didn’t. We checked the air bag system. No faults. I had to drive to the Tennessee mountains to find the answer to what happen. After recreating the event with a like kind truck, I found the answer. This vehicle only had one recall for the Takata air bags exploding and sending missiles into the occupants. There were a couple consumer complaints where the air bags did not deploy, but the number was not significant.

I thought about a recall I had been involved in, but this truck was not recalled for a faulty ignition switch. However it had the same ignition and style of key of the recall. I then took into consideration as to the terrain the truck passed through before crashing. Everything was consistent with the recall. If the vehicle hit a bump, the ignition could rock back to off and shut the engine off and air bags would not deploy. This vehicle crossed a median and approached the step up of the black top of the entrance ramp it crossed causing the truck to launch with the wheels at least 41″ above the pavement to clear the guardrail and hitting a bunch of trees on at least a 6% grade until it landed where it was found. Weather was considered, pavement conditions at 3 am with a 25 mph warning on the ramp with a hair pin curve.

When all was said and done, everything matched the on site crash investigator’s report a couple years previous. I generated a report for the estate to consider a case against GM for the ignition recall.

That is why I do what I do. Not always are answers to questions so stark, but finding the answer is an emotional high! That is the thrill of the chase!

I am going to address the industry of forensic locksmithing as applied to reported stolen vehicles to determine how the vehicle was last driven.

I can state in my opinion over the last decade, this industry has been a total fraud, a Con, a Scam. The industry is used as a third party investigation tool to accuse the insured of involvement of a bogus theft claim. This has devastated insureds financially, reputations destroyed as well when prosecuted, conviction rates are very high.

Someone could argue that my opinion is just sour grapes and that I have no facts to support my opinions. That my examination methods are secret and are what should be applied. The opposing lawyers try everything possible to attack me to diminish anything I say.

Well, here it is, my opinion about this fraudulent industry is one thing, it is quite another to be supported by fact and that it is.

Forensic locksmithing in its current state thrives on ignorance. The less one knows about auto theft and how forensics is supposed to play a role, the better it is for the expert using a bogus forensic title.

It is meant to be perceived that being self taught in forensics, that the examination processes I use are strictly subjective and that I am wrong and everyone in the industry is right. The truth of the matter is that my forensic methodology is built on a nationally accepted guide, which in courts is commonly used as the standard to fire investigation, the NFPA 921. I have taken the information from there and applied it to any type of vehicle examination I am doing. This can be for the origin and cause of a vehicle fire. A potential defect that may prompt a recall, and of course vehicle thefts.

How can you use methods applied in fire investigation and relate them to a theft? The subject matter may be different, but the principles are the same.

I apply what I know about theft and use those principals. Using the scientific method, everything is required to be scientifically verifiable. To be scientifically verifiable, another examiner should be able to apply the same principles, examine the same evidence and reach the exact same conclusion.

The first problem I run into opposing one of these experts commonly, evidence such as the ignition lock was never removed or retained. First, that means they never disassembled the ignition lock to determine if there were identifiable marks in the tumblers that could be traced back to a specific key.

Since there was no evidence retained and the vehicle was disposed of, how can someone replicate the examination? The examination obviously can’t be replicated. The conclusion however is a one size fits all and will blend in with any examination. It does not specify the recent use of a specific key, but instead the use of any key. The conclusion is ready made for any report and assumed to be the insured’s key was last used. The conclusion is the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. This encompasses any key, the insureds first key, second key, and in the case of a used car, an unaccounted for key. It can be a thief’s key. This conclusion covers it all and everything else in the report is all fluff.

To demonstrate this farther, a vehicle does not even need to be recovered and the physical evidence examined. There are “forensic” reports written on vehicles that were never recovered and the conclusion of proper key fits perfectly! This is what we are dealing with folks! Deception that controls the destiny on an insured’s life!

Insurance defense attorneys are good at twisting fact to defend their client. After all the defense of their client is their job, but they take it to the extreme. I am going to lay out real statements made by experts to support their stance of insured involvement. To the novice, it sounds like there is a good reason of motive on the part of the insured. As I address further, you will see pure speculation serving as fact by the expert. The defense gets mad at me because I rain on their parade, but all I want to see is fact and truth. Both of which, I don’t seem to find in any forensic report I review on reported stolen vehicles.

Let’s start with a Texas case. The names won’t be mentioned to protect the guilty. (Insurance company and expert)

We start with a reported stolen 2 wheel drive Dodge Ram. The expert examines the vehicle. This vehicle was equipped with what is known as a POD key. The ignition has no wafers (tumblers) and the only reason for the key blade being attached to the key fob is if battery power is lost, the key can be inserted into the driver’s door lock to unlock the door. Other key’s used for this vehicle, are just a plastic key fob. The plastic key fob is inserted into the ignition socket in the dash.

There are also after market kits in which one can install a simple start button and the key fob sits in a pocket or purse.

It is very interesting as to how the expert plays mind reader into the un-caught thief’s mind as to why he did or did not do something. Yet, this is done all the time by these experts and the statements made by the experts are treated as fact. After all they are forensic, which must make them clarevoyent as well! They are the experts, how dare you dare question them?

From the way the report was written, I was bias towards the client the insurance carrier, where only facts should have been addressed without the commentary diluting the facts.

This vehicle was recovered what I would call stripped. The engine and components associated with it including the computer, radiator and transmission were all missing. All wheels and tires on this dually had been switched except for the left front. The flat bed and additional fuel tank were missing.

The ignition socket was broken. With the socket being broken, it could no longer incorporate a key fob. This damage was considered by the expert to be caused by the insured attempting to make the ignition look like it was defeated. In other words a staged theft. It is possible that this vehicle was subject of a staged theft, but it is also possible it wasn’t. The expert in his report assumed it was staged without having any evidence to confirm or deny.

He then attempted to get the mileage to te vehicle, but could not get the ignition in the on position. Instead, he used the oil change sticker that was about a year old.

He then went on as to how the engine in this type of truck was problematic and known for failure. To summarize the report, the ignition was damaged, and truck probably had bad engine, which had been removed to simulate a theft.

There were major issues in this assumption being treated as fact by the expert and defense attorney.

#1 How does the expert prove another key fob was not made for this vehicle? He had already established the vehicle had been force entered. He did the major mistake that most experts do. He relied on factory supplied information that does not take into consideration the after market. When I say after market, I am referring to locksmiths and thieves making keys to these vehicles using after market key programmers. This expert cannot prove one way or the other as to how this vehicle was last driven. The computer was not present to interrogate.

We don’t know why he ignition was damaged. Was it just an act of vandalism? No one knows, but the expert went far from his expertise assuming the damage was done by the insured to make it look like this was a theft.

The expert went on to say that the type of diesel that was in this truck was known for failure. To assume that this engine was bad and removed from the vehicle to make a false claim is ludicrous. The transmission was missing too! Whoever removed the engine was not a hack, pure professional! Wiring harnesses disconnected and not cut. If smart enough to remove the engine, would not have een stupid enough to damage the ignition to make it look like theft. I even asked if the insured had a mechanical background and was told he did not.

This truck could have been towed in seconds! Working for a repo company recently, it is conceivable to pick this truck up from the rear and be gone in 20 seconds! Did the expert consider towing or the use of a reprogrammed key fob? No!

He looked at this truck as a fraudulent claim. He supplied his report which initiated the investigation which led to the denial of the claim.

Was the expert aware of the condition of the engine from this truck? Of course not! It wasn’t present to examine. The narrative made was that someone went to extensive work to remove the engine and transmission because the engine was bad and then not knowing how to start the truck without the key fob destroyed the ignition. This is all conjecture on the part of the expert, but was used as fact in the investigation of the claim by the investigator. The investigator is only as good as the information with a slant the expert supplies.

We all know insurance companies are going to use experts that will write favorable reports for them. The problem is that these forensic exams are subjective and we are just supposed to take the expert’s word for it. Why? Why are we dealing with un-based opinion and masquerading the conclusion as fact without the supposition?

Here is an example used in a criminal case. You know, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Vehicle: Reported stolen Chev Equinox recovered burned.

The prosecutions case was built on the forensic expert’s statement that the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.

Expert states that appeared as though someone had been to the vehicle before him and the burn debris that had fallen to the driver’s floor appeared to be displaced. Consistent with someone digging through the burn debris.

Expert could not find the ignition lock or any remains of it. He had found a dent puller with a broken screw attached on the driver’s floor. His factual statement (sarcasm) was he did not locate the ignition, but if he would have found the ignition, it may have had the broken screw piece May have been in the keyway.

The expert also stated that the vehicle was equipped with the PK III transponder system, in which his company was not aware of this system being defeated.

In court when I testified, I demonstrated 5 different ways the vehicle could be stolen without the use of the insured’s keys. Because the vehicle was destroyed by fire, not one of those methods could be ruled out with forensics, and in this case, the ignition was not located. The fire damage took away any possibilities of determining if the PK III had been bypassed. The expert made appear as fact that because his company never saw te system bypassed it must not have never happened. That statement just demonstrated how ignorant he and his company were on the bypass of that system. Its been in use since 1997 and many know how to bypass the system.

In essence the facts to this case are is that the vehicle was reported stolen, recovered burned. As to how it was last driven the conclusion would be inconclusive due to lack of evidence.

Not only did the insured get denied on his theft claim, but he was left paying out thousands of dollars on a defense attorney and for my expert consultation. All because this expert wanted to look like a hero to the insurance company and prosecution!

Unfortunately, just about every report I review frm these insurance experts is the same ole’ assumption that is portrayed as fact.